Undergoing Meniscectomy Within One Year Before Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Worse Postoperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) who have a history of meniscectomy have worse postoperative functional outcomes, increased rates of early postoperative complications, and higher revision rates. Despite knowing this, to the best of our knowledge, it has not been previously studied whether the timing of meniscectomy before TKA impacts functional outcomes after undergoing TKA. Compared to patients who underwent meniscectomy more than one year before TKA, do patients who have meniscectomy less than one year before TKA have significantly different postoperative outcomes? METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an academic medical center. Patients who did not have a history of meniscectomy (controls) were matched in a 1:3 ratio with patients who underwent meniscectomy before primary TKA (cases) based on age, sex, race, body mass index, and non-age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients undergoing TKA from 2013 to 2020, with a minimum of one-year follow-up for Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR). Exclusion criteria comprised patients undergoing revision or conversion TKA. There were 1,767 patients in the control cohort and 589 patients in the cases cohort who were included. RESULTS: Preoperative KOOS-JR scores did not significantly differ between the five cohorts, while postoperative KOOS-JR scores were significantly lower for patients who underwent meniscectomy less than six months before TKA, and between six months and one year before TKA. Patients undergoing meniscectomy within six months of TKA had a significantly higher rate of aseptic revision, while patients who had a history of meniscectomy at other timeframes did not have a significantly increased rate of aseptic revision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TKA who had a history of meniscectomy within one year of the TKA may experience worse postoperative functional outcomes, and patients undergoing meniscectomy within six months of TKA may have an increased risk of revision TKA.

Joint line position change in primary total knee arthroplasty: a radiographic analysis comparing conventional and robotic techniques.

PURPOSE: Joint line (JL) position change in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may alter knee biomechanics and impact function. The purpose of this study was to compare the change in JL position between robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) and conventional TKA (C-TKA). METHODS: A retrospective, radiographic analysis was conducted of patients who underwent RA-TKA and C-TKA to compare JL position change. JL position was measured in consecutive RA-TKAs and C-TKAs performed by four fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Statistical analysis was done utilizing t-tests and Mann Whitney U tests, with statistical significance being defined as a p value < 0.05. RESULTS: Six hundred total RA-TKAs and 400 total C-TKAs were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in patient baseline characteristics such as body mass index, range of motion, and tibiofemoral coronal alignment. RA-TKAs were associated with an average of 0.04 (2.2) mm JL position change, and C-TKAs were associated with an average 0.5 (3.2) mm JL position change (p = 0.030). There were inter-surgeon differences when comparing the change in JL position for RA-TKAs and C-TKAs between the four participating surgeons. CONCLUSION: RA-TKA leads to better preservation of the JL position than C-TKA, and this seems to be dependent on the arthroplasty surgeon's preferences and techniques during TKA. Whether this statistically significant difference is clinically relevant needs to be further investigated.

Prior Meniscectomy in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty is Associated With Worse Short-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) who have prior meniscectomy may have increased rates of postoperative infection, arthrofibrosis, and revision. However, aside from an increased risk of complications, it is unclear whether prior meniscectomy impacts functional outcomes after TKA. This study was conducted to compare functional outcomes following TKA in patients who did and did not have a prior meniscectomy. We hypothesized that patients who had a prior ipsilateral meniscectomy would have worse functional outcomes after undergoing TKA. METHODS: A retrospective matched case-control study was conducted at a tertiary academic center. Patients who underwent both meniscectomy and TKA (cases) or TKA alone (controls) from 2013 to 2020 were identified from our institutional database using current procedural terminology codes. Cases were matched in a 1:3 ratio to controls using age, sex, race, body mass index, and a comorbidity index. Inclusion criteria comprised a minimum of 1-year follow-up for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Junior (KOOS-JR). Exclusion criteria included patients undergoing revision TKA and patients who had a history of ligamentous knee surgery or fracture. T- and Chi-squared analyses were conducted, with significance threshold being P < .05. A total of 589 cases and 1,767 controls were included after matching. There were no significant differences in demographic variables. Cases underwent TKA after their meniscectomy at a mean of 2.9 years (range: 42 days to 16 years). RESULTS: While no significant difference existed for preoperative KOOS-JR scores (46.4 versus 46.4; P = .984), postoperative KOOS-JR scores were significantly lower in the case group (71.9 versus 75.3; P = .001). The case group also achieved the KOOS-JR minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) at significantly lower rates than the control group [(MCID: 71.0 versus 77.3%; P = .011) (PASS: 69.4 versus 76.7%; P = .001);]. CONCLUSION: Patients who had a prior meniscectomy may experience lower postoperative functional outcome scores after TKA and had a lower rate of achieving the MCID and PASS for KOOS-JR. Patient expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

Image-Free Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Results in Quicker Recovery but Equivalent One-Year Outcomes Compared to Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed whether robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) significantly impacts functional outcomes. This study was conducted to determine whether image-free RA-TKA improves function compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty (C-TKA), performed without the utilization of robotics or navigation, using the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) as measures of meaningful clinical improvement. METHODS: A multicenter propensity score-matched retrospective study was conducted of RA-TKA using an image-free robotic system and C-TKA cases at an average follow-up of 14 months (range, 12 months to 20 months). Consecutive patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA and had a preoperative and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) were included. The primary outcomes were the MCID and PASS for KOOS-JR. 254 RA-TKA and 762 C-TKA patients were included, with no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, or comorbidities. RESULTS: Preoperative KOOS-JR scores were similar in the RA-TKA and C-TKA cohorts. Significantly greater improvement in KOOS-JR scores were achieved at 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively with RA-TKA compared to C-TKA. While the mean 1-year postoperative KOOS-JR was significantly higher in the RA-TKA cohort, no significant differences were found in the Delta KOOS-JR scores between the cohorts, when comparing preoperative and 1-year postoperative. No significant differences existed in the rates of MCID or PASS being achieved. CONCLUSION: Image-free RA-TKA reduces pain and improves early functional recovery compared to C-TKA at 4 to 6 weeks, but functional outcomes at 1 year are equivalent based on the MCID and PASS for KOOS-JR.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-database Comparative Studies on Cemented Versus Uncemented Femoral Stems in Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cemented and uncemented femoral stems have shown excellent survivorship and outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cementless stems have become increasingly common in the United States; however, multiple large database studies have suggested that elderly patients may have fewer complications with a cemented stem. As conclusions from large databases may be limited due to variations in data collection, this study investigated femoral stem survivorship and complication rates based on cement status in non-database studies. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized to identify articles for inclusion up until June 2021. Included articles directly compared outcomes and complications between patients undergoing primary THA without femoral stem cementing to those with cementing. Studies were excluded if they utilized large databases or consisted of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of trauma. RESULTS: Of the 1700 studies, 309 were selected for abstract review and nineteen for full-text review. A total of seven studies were selected. Meta-analyses indicated substantial heterogeneity between studies. There were no differences in revision rates (cementless: 5.53% vs. cemented 8.91%, P = .543), infection rates (cementless: 0.60% vs. cemented: 0.90%, P = .692), or periprosthetic fracture rates (cementless: 0.52% vs. cemented: 0.51%, P = .973) between groups. CONCLUSION: There is scarce literature comparing outcomes and complications between cemented and cementless femoral stems in primary elective THA without utilizing a database methodology. In our study, there were no differences in complications detected on meta-analyses. Given previous findings in database studies, additional high-quality cohort studies are required to determine if selected patients may benefit from a cemented femoral stem.

Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon.

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates. Results: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; P < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, P = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized (P = 0.226). Conclusion: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.